D&D General Muscular Neutrality (thought experiment)

[Steampunkette]

The MN won’t be taking me out, though they may remove my shackles on the way to killing the good.

.... that is not remotely what a "Hill to Die on" refers to...

It means no one, here, is going to take your side on altruism being "Slavery" or even "Subservience". That is a terrible redefinition of a word that diminishes the brutality of real world slavery to try and hold it up as defense for your ridiculous position. Hell, I doubt anyone will take your position remotely seriously because of it!

You are giving us a perfect example of why I've repeatedly stated the "Good is actually secretly evil, you guys!" argument is so laughably weak in the muscular neutrality discussion.

So yes. Fight and die on a hill no one cares about, and no one else wants. You'll be alone doing it and no one else will care.

But at least you'll have the view to yourself.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

If I have to be altruistic to be good, and I desire a reputation as a good neighbor, I have to enter into slavery. I agree no one is forcing me. I could instead choose freedom, but my reputation would suffer and everything else equal, society would marginalize me and ultimately, my standard of living would decrease.

If you use words to mean things which they do not conventionally mean, then you will find communication with other humans to be challenging.

None of what you write is comprehensible to a rational thinker.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

None of what you write is comprehensible to a rational thinker.

It does seem a perfect example of an equivocation fallacy and motte-and-bailey argument.

 

[Hriston]

I agree no one is forcing me.

Then it isn't slavery.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree no one is forcing me.

You cannot be "enslaved" if no one is forcing you to do things. Every definition of slavery involves either force or physical violence (or the threat thereof). If you aren't being forced, you cannot be enslaved. Using the word when it explicitly does not apply is simply an attempt to demonize a view you don't like, without actually showing that it's doing anything wrong.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

If I have to be altruistic to be good, and I desire a reputation as a good neighbor, I have to enter into slavery. I agree no one is forcing me. I could instead choose freedom, but my reputation would suffer and everything else equal, society would marginalize me and ultimately, my standard of living would decrease. I would think the invading MN folks would see both as bad options, so they take out supporters of that system.

The OP has clarified that the ultimate victory of Good can't have a detrimental effect on anyone. So the idea that you'd be marginalized for not being altruistic, reducing your quality of life, is outside the premise of the thought experiment. Good as defined by the OP for the purpose of the thread should tolerate and welcome your lack of adherence to the Good tenets like altruism.

 

[Maxperson]

The MN won’t be taking me out, though they may remove my shackles on the way to killing the good.


If I have to be altruistic to be good, and I desire a reputation as a good neighbor, I have to enter into slavery. I agree no one is forcing me. I could instead choose freedom, but my reputation would suffer and everything else equal, society would marginalize me and ultimately, my standard of living would decrease. I would think the invading MN folks would see both as bad options, so they take out supporters of that system.

The thought is that one shouldn’t have to be a slave to be good. Personally, I would be embarrassed if I expected my neighbor to be subservient to me. I agree everyone has different definitions of what is best and I don’t expect anyone to adopt my definition. I think MN would argue that based on reason/logic, being good should not necessitate being a slave. They don’t try to convince any “good” person of that, they just take them out.

At this point it's both clear and offensive that you don't know what slavery is and keep minimizing it with your statements. No one is forcing you to be good, ergo no one is enslaving you. Even a little bit.

 

[edhel]

Taking it as given that

1. Muscular neutrality between good and evil is a metaphysically valid position,
2. "Good" is "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings",
3. and "Evil" is "harming, oppressing, and killing others",

what justifies a position of muscular neutrality?

My 2 cents regarding the premise:
Neutrality in D&D indeed makes more sense in the original Law vs Chaos polarity where Law represent the divine of law of all creation, and Chaos is the destructive force that wants to tear it apart back to the abyss.

In a grounded Good vs Evil context I'd simplify it as what serves your life is Good, and what hurts it is Evil. In this context I'd say altruism is evil since you sacrifice yourself. Muscular Good is noble because it helps people from a position of strength, power, and honor, and not from a weak sacrificial position. Muscular Evil hurts itself and others because it has nothing to offer to anyone. It's full of lies and deceit, and it tries to convince people to sacrifice themselves for it, and it can't create anything.

In a more cosmic context Good could represent alignment with the divine law to get good things. Evil represent misalignment with the divine law (due to pride, resentment, envy, oppressor-victim-savior dynamic etc.) and it tries to get power, resources, vain accomplishments etc. through violence or deception because it can't produce anything due to the misalignment - but doesn't necessarily want to destroy the whole existence. LE would subvert well-intentioned structures to serve selfish ends, and CE would utilize destructive forces to do the same no matter the cost.

Muscular Neutrality in this context could be a compassionate understanding of this eternal conflict and not striving for any particular result. Sometimes kingdoms are taken over by Evil and then there's a battle for the restoration of Good. Neutral wizards could be just observers and maybe even advisors for both, as long as there's no extremes. They're ok with using dark magic as a tool, or appealing to the divine as need be. There's an understanding and acceptance of certain kind of cosmic justice - reaping what you have sown - and no need to interfere with that.